Post by Kiwi Frontline on Dec 24, 2020 13:40:56 GMT 12
Northland Age 24/12/20
A FATHER FIGURE
I wonder if Tony Clemow (Northern Advocate December 17) or his NZ historians have ever read W Colenso’s, "Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi", 1890, or Rev John Warren’s report who were both present at the signing ceremony at Waitangi 1840.
Tony’s argument laced with ‘generally’, ‘seem’s’, appeared, in terms of, is not very convincing, as is his making a complex issue out of a simple preamble and 3 clause unambiguous document (agreed this document should be examined in the context of 1840) which was read to those assembled at Waitangi in both English and Maori prior to signing.
In Article 1, The chiefs ceded sovereignty (kawanatanga) completely and for ever and their recorded speeches are evidence they understood what they were signing. (Read Colenso’s record)
It is utterly absurd therefore to say that in Article 2 they somehow retained sovereignty. Were Hobson and Busby that inept? The primary intent of the Treaty was to obtain the chief’s consent for the transfer of sovereignty/chieftainship as per Lord Normanby’s brief to Hobson.
Therefore, whatever the meaning of “tino rangatiratanga” it means nothing remotely like sovereignty/chieftianship.
The only tenable meaning is “full possession”, as ownership of property/possessions is what Article 2 was about.
Moreover this guarantee of ownership of property was assured to ALL the people of NZ.
Clemow opines that Williams ‘hoodwinked’ the chiefs in his exchanges with them, yet Maori erected a memorial to him which says “He was a father indeed to all the tribes “
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
www.kiwifrontline.nz/media/letters-to-the-editor
A FATHER FIGURE
I wonder if Tony Clemow (Northern Advocate December 17) or his NZ historians have ever read W Colenso’s, "Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi", 1890, or Rev John Warren’s report who were both present at the signing ceremony at Waitangi 1840.
Tony’s argument laced with ‘generally’, ‘seem’s’, appeared, in terms of, is not very convincing, as is his making a complex issue out of a simple preamble and 3 clause unambiguous document (agreed this document should be examined in the context of 1840) which was read to those assembled at Waitangi in both English and Maori prior to signing.
In Article 1, The chiefs ceded sovereignty (kawanatanga) completely and for ever and their recorded speeches are evidence they understood what they were signing. (Read Colenso’s record)
It is utterly absurd therefore to say that in Article 2 they somehow retained sovereignty. Were Hobson and Busby that inept? The primary intent of the Treaty was to obtain the chief’s consent for the transfer of sovereignty/chieftainship as per Lord Normanby’s brief to Hobson.
Therefore, whatever the meaning of “tino rangatiratanga” it means nothing remotely like sovereignty/chieftianship.
The only tenable meaning is “full possession”, as ownership of property/possessions is what Article 2 was about.
Moreover this guarantee of ownership of property was assured to ALL the people of NZ.
Clemow opines that Williams ‘hoodwinked’ the chiefs in his exchanges with them, yet Maori erected a memorial to him which says “He was a father indeed to all the tribes “
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
www.kiwifrontline.nz/media/letters-to-the-editor